Redland Woods

FACT - Nov. 2, 2000 Board Resolution establishes ''capital replacement reserve fund'' with initial funding of $93,877. (plus approx. $10,xxx for previous years accumulated interest). Board resolutions become part of the associations ''governing documents'' - along with By-Laws, Articles of Incorporation and The Declaration of protective Covenants.
FACT - Feb. 2001 annual meeting - ProComm representative introduces fund to association and commends the board for the action. He further stated ''this action made Redland Woods one of the most financial stable associations with respect to future capital maintenance obligations.'' (note ''maintenance'' not ''expansion'').
FACT - 2001 additional annual funding to Reserve Fund brings total to $128,929 - per annual ''audited'' report.
FACT - March 2002 - change in ''leadership '' of the board.
FACT - Remainder of 2002 - fund increases to only $131,348 (only interest - no additional annual funding (Oct. 2000 study documented need for $25,745 annually).
FACT - Oct. 2003 - Per ProComm - fund at approx. $144,xxx (only $13,000 funded so far this year.
BOTTOM LINE - RESERVE FUND will be short approx. $37,xxx by Dec. 2003 and must be properly funded. Fund is dedicated to future maintenance and repair of EXISTING assets, NOT construction of new assets. Available cash for landscaping and pool is only $185,xxx at best. Landscaping is critical (approx. $35,xxx without resoddingand reseeding). Net $155,xxx available for pool (only $130,000 if resodding and reseeding are done).
Maybe another day.
''Just the facts - ma'am''



























































By Det. Joe Friday

WHY?

Why were we shown budgets for two years that included money to be put into the Reserve Fund? I was happy that we had this money set aside. I lived in another community where the initial money we had when the owners took over were used to upgrade existing facilities. Within two yearswe had major maintenance problems. Since we had no money for it, we needed a special assessment for two years. The amenity upgrades were used by only 20% of the owners, but 100% had to pay the special assessment.

By ''Concerned''